Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday April 26, 2010 @02:22PM
from the get-your-face-out-there dept.

Geoffrey.landis writes "Terry Southgate discovered that his wife Wendy appears on the Google Street View of his neighborhood not once or twice but a whopping 43 times. From the article: 'It seems as if the Street View car simply followed the same route as Wendy and Trixie. However, Wendy was a little suspicious that the car was doing something on the "tricksie" side. Several of the Street View shots show Wendy looking with some concern towards the car that was, well, to put it politely, crawling along the curb. "I didn't know what it was doing. It was just driving round very, very slowly," Wendy told the Sun.' The next best thing to being a movie star — a Street View star!"

I knew that gang violence had gotten bad in some parts of the world but now even Google vans have become roving death squads spewing bullets. What? Was there a Bing van behind her or something? Forty three shots! How many clips is that and will they be holding Brin and Page accountable?

Consider that it's vehicle based, and they drive an awful lot. To get that much shooting done, they're using a belt fed gun. Magazines are for portability. Belts are for throwing lots of ammunition down range.:)

They aren't "clips" they are magazines. Clips hold rounds of ammunition for insertion into a magazine. AR-17? You mean AR-15, right, I find it highly unlikely you are familiar with the very rare AR-17 shotgun, but I could be wrong. In this context though, I doubt it.
If you are wondering how many MAGAZINES of ammo used in a handgun would be 43 rounds, 3 would be the most likely, assuming a regular 9mm handgun. Mag capacity varies depending on the gun and caliber of ammo used. If one uses a handgun based

Actually most modern handguns are loaded using magazines.
There is an easy way to differentiate between clips and magazines, sadly people, especially the media are most often mistaken.
I'm not guaranteeing this method of differentiation has a 100% accuracy, but:
If it holds bullets and is used to slide the bullets into the weapon (into it's magazine well). It's a clip.
If it hold bullets and is inserted into the weapon, it's a magazine.
Some people might say, they both hold bullets, what does it matter?

What about En-Bloc clips for the M1 Garand? Holds a bunch of cartridges (and seriously, you can't be all pedantic about clip vs magazine and then get the cartridge/bullet thing wrong:) ), slides into the gun. Thoughts?

I've seen it defined (IMHO better) thus:

Clips hold rounds, but typically at least a part of each round protrudes from the clip;Magazines encase rounds.

Let this be a lesson to you boys and girls. Sure, you might be able to offload a bunch of religulous crazies by shipping them somewhere else. But you run the risk that by some strange fluke, the natives won't murder them in their beds, and pretty soon, you have a whole continent full of religulous crazies with nukes.

That's easy. Everyone knows Big Brother is there for their own protection. He sees all to make sure we're safe. we all trust Big Brother to protect us. Well, unless Big Brother sees we did something he didn't like, then there's nowhere to hide.

Google, on the other hand, is just invading our privacy by taking pictures.

Photography is illegal, or so I was told when I was taking photographs from a public road. It's amazing how quick you can get the sheriffs department and H

It's not illegal, if they told you that they were either misinformed or lying. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, if it can be seen from public space, it's unlikely to be considered private by legal definitions. But IANAL so YMMV.

However, arguing with a mall rentacop over the finer points of law is downright fun. After the real cops arrive then you get all polite and stuff (and do what they say, because they have handcuffs, guns, and Miranda cards, and while in theory you will get your property (camera) back, in reality this is not always the case).

Well, I wouldn't say illegal, but it can be downright unhealthy. I've never been on the unhealthy side of a taser, CS gas, nor pepper spray, but I've experienced them as parts of various trainings. Well, only the direct contact stun gun, not the projectile version. None were very pleasant.

I don't particularly like the idea of spending extensive time with a LEO where they're trying to find any reason to take me in. "Have you been drinking" is never best responded with "I hav

It is illegal when they claim it is against "national security" to take pictures. "National security" is a vague enough concept that they can claim just about anything is in the interest of "national security."

That's the difference between what law enforcement says, and what the real law says. When a uniformed DHS officer is standing in front of you saying that you're endangering national security you have two choices. You can say "Sorry sir, I won't take any pictures and I will be leaving now.", or you can argue the point, end up in handcuffs and be taken away to jail so your lawyer can (hopefully) argue that there was nothing illegal about doing it. When the representative of the government says "It was fo

The saddest thing is, the have been news about exactly that.Putting cameras in bars and people's homes. Naturally the 'foot in the door' is the 'stop crime blahblah' but what will stop them from going full monty?Ya know, it is just to protect the children against the NaziZeoniteIslamofashistCommunist threat.

In reality, we already have a look into quite a few homes. Look at all the places people post pictures of themselves at.

Some people are kind enough to put wireless web cams in, on unsecured wireless networks. You can simply park in front of their house, and see inside. Some people use wireless cameras which simply broadcast out the signal if you have the appropriate receiver. Google Maps [google.com] is nice

Big Brother does not tolerate competition. It also does not like giving people ability to see what Big Brother sees, I wouldn't be surprised if they forbade Google from doing this altogether at some point.

In a country known for the government being big brother they are blocking streets so google can't take pictures? What?

I don't know about you, but if I absolutely _had_ to choose someone to take pictures of me, I'd much rather prefer it was the government that I can hold accountable, instead of a multinational corporation. I'm intrigued about your reasoning, though.

I believe the police have pointed out to people who suggest they're going to do that, that it would be a criminal offence. I think the offence is still called "Obstructing the Queen's Highway" or it might just be "Causing an Obstruction".

Yeah. That’s what happened. Nobody followed anybody, their routes just happened to intersect a few times.

I knew it was kind of silly anyway, because Google street view is always going to take half a dozen pictures of the same thing as it drives down the street. 43 seems much, but if it passed her a few times it’s not surprising.

For those interested, it starts with the Street view car approaching her, first sighting her here [google.com] and driving past, turning onto Cooks Rd. (there’s one step at which she isn’t in the picture because it was filmed when the car returned to film the rest of Cross St.), and she’s still visible from a good distance down Cooks. Then the car turned off to other streets and when it returned to film more of Cooks Rd, there she was [google.com]; the car turned onto Thedwastre Close and she’s barely still visible [google.com] but once again the street view car hits some side streets and when it drives past she’s caught up to it again [google.com].

I wasn’t counting, and I don’t really care to look through the whole neighbourhood to find out whether she ran into the car a few more times...

Wow, this must have really freaked her out. Not only the whole follow-her-around thing (which is just creepy enough to be hilarious), but imagine if she did a search and found her own likeness time after time.

This should be done more often as a very excellent prank. Bonus points if you catch someone doing something embarrassing.

Happened to a few people I know, not surprising, the same vehicle drives several nearby streets throughout the day.If it's a nice day, and you're running around, you're likely to get a few photos taken.

While it's possible that the photographing vehicle was "stalking" her, I find it just as likely that she was walking alongside the vehicle. Otherwise, how could you explain that this poor old lady happened to be in 43 different locations that the vehicle wanted to record?? 43 pics of the front of her house? Unlikely.

I guess if you count all the photos at each location, you might get 43, but I can see the lady and her dog from only 5 locations. Start at Anonymous Coward's Direct Link [google.com], back up a couple of steps, go north on Cooks road, rotating to look south, and back up a couple more steps. The cop car keeps following for a little while, but the lady disappears.